From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 02:27:05 +0000 From: Luis Chamberlain Subject: Re: Fix built-in early-load Intel microcode alignment Message-ID: <20200115022705.GE11244@42.do-not-panic.com> References: <20200113154739.GB11244@42.do-not-panic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Jari Ruusu , Borislav Petkov , Fenghua Yu , johannes.berg@intel.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List , stable , Andy Lutomirski , Hans de Goede , Ohad Ben-Cohen , Bjorn Andersson , linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:44:25AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 7:47 AM Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > > So I'd like to determine first if we really need this. Then if so, > > either add a new global config option, and worst comes to worst > > figure out a way to do it per driver. I don't think we'd need it > > per driver. > > I really don't think we need to have a config option for some small > alignment. Increasing the alignment unconditionally to 16 bytes won't > hurt anybody. Since you are confident in that, then simply bumping it to 16 bytes seems fine by me. > Now, whether there might be other firmware loaders that need even more > alignment, that might be an interesting question, and if such an > alignment would be _huge_ we might want to worry about actual memory > waste. I can only envision waste being considered due to alignent for remote proc folks, who I *doubt* use the built-in stuff given the large size of their blobs... but since you never know, better poke. So I've CC'd them. > But 16-byte alignment for a fw blob? That's nothing. Fine by me if we are sure it won't break anything and we hear no complaints by remote proc folks. Luis